Featured Can we see this as a chance that God can bring good out of ther bad?

So we aren’t going to “snip” the calling of someone an unbeliever? I’m not a child so don’t call me one and don’t lump me in with him as part of the problem. I’ve not breached any rules here. I reported the post. Either enforce the rules or don’t.

 

Maybe you should just consider the Baptist Board Moderators defunded, maybe Aaron was caught and released, no bail required, or jumped the border and told them he was a Liberal and was given a free pass. Be more tolerant Use of Time!

 

I’m never tolerant of being called an unbeliever.

 

Why don't you pray about it?

 

Abortion is murder. This however, does not mean that we shouldn’t respect and honor our civil leaders who say that abortion is a woman’s choice however bad this error may be. Sin, error, and impiety in civil leaders does not make void our duty to respect and honor them as the servants of God.

Joe Biden “...is a minister [or servant] of God to thee for good...” (Romans 13:4 ASV)

No doubt Nero and other of the Roman emperors were ungodly men. But neither their ungodliness nor any murder they may have been guilty of or taken part in nullified Christians’ duty to honor and respect their persons in the Lord, to not speak lightly of them, to not malign them, to not speak evil of them, or to not speak dishonorably or disrespectfully of them.

I hope we can all respect and honor Joe Biden as President of the United States and servant of God.

It is my desire that we will be able to use moderation and even come together as a nation with the Democrats and President Joe Biden, though we may not and ought not to join with them in defending or promoting their pro-choice or LGBT views or agendas. We must oppose abortion being legal in a right manner. It is not enough not we should merely oppose abortion being legal or oppose the LGBT agenda, but we must also do it in a right and godly manner with use of moderation, forbearance and patience. We can exercise forbearance in reference to the sins of others or sinful policies, but we ought not to approve of, indicate that we approve of, act like we approve of, or pretend to approve of sin.

 

Check your premises. A murderer, better said, a thief fighting to allow the murder of our innocent unborn is neither "civil" or my "leader". Using the typical simple argument of a Liberal: "I’m never tolerant of being called a __________." (murderer!) - nor do I partake in ANY WAY of condoning such evil!

As for your next premise:

You are reading WAY too much into that scripture and not comparing scripture to scripture at a minimum. I'll give you the benefit of doubt that you were equally an activist for the Presidency of Trump being good though, and hopefully, at least are not being hypocritical with that interpretation. I don't know, but I do not remember you here defending Trump like this...

One can show respect for the top leadership position in the USA without "respecting and honoring" Joe Biden and/or his ways. It seems your argument's conclusion is to call evil, good and claim the Christian thing to do is to respect and honor it. I'd just as soon respect and honor the Devil himself and that would be over my dead body.

Although, I share the desire for our nation to come together, I will not, would not and do not consider it the Christian thing to do to disregard our values for peace under the threat that there will be none if we do not surrender to evil. I might call that kind of plea a lot of things, but Christian would not be one of them!

 

I do not say that we should call good evil or evil good. I do not say that we should condone abortion, homosexuality, etc. or accept them as being right. I do, however, say that we should be willing to work with those who we recognize promote certain sins, though we do not ourselves promote or consent to those sins. This was the attitude of the Puritans to be willing to work with the monarch, though he or she be an unjust monarch while at the same time not consenting to or approving those things they recognized to be sins and corruptions within the Church of England and the government and laws of the commonwealth of England.

When I say “civil ruler” or “civil government” I mean it as opposed to “ecclesiastical leaders” in the church or “ecclesiastical government,” i.e. the government of the church. I do not use the terms, “Civil ruler” or “civil government” in reference to the civility, virtue, or characteristics of any ruler or government.

 

I can respond to that if no-one else can. Roe versus Wade was decided 1n 1973 by a Supreme Court composed of 6 Republicans and 3 Democrats. The Chief Justice was a Republican. A Republican wrote the majority opinion. The vote was 7-2 with one Democrat and one Republican dissenting. So who brought us the federal law making abortion legal everywhere? The Republican Party.

 

How the Republican party became pro-life - The Washington Post

In a recent paper, University of West Georgia’s Daniel K. Williams recounts the unexpected challenge that the then “pro-choice majority” in the Republican national convention encountered that year:

As Ford’s campaign managers struggled to draft a platform position on abortion that was acceptable to the president, they recognized that it would be difficult to navigate a middle course between the wishes of social conservatives such as Melady and women’s rights advocates such as the First Lady. One adviser, taking the president’s previous statements as a guide, drafted a Republican Party platform plank that stated, “The 1973 Supreme Court decision and recent decisions have gone too far. The way abortion is treated should be decided by the people in their own state, close to their own homes.”

But Bob Dole, who was trying to win support from conservatives in his bid to become Ford’s running mate, realized that a strong antiabortion platform plank could conciliate Reagan delegates and gain approval from Catholics and social conservatives. Dole met with representatives of Ellen McCormack’s Democratic presidential campaign in order to find out what they would accept in a platform plank on abortion, and he then worked with Senator Jesse Helms (R-N.C.), a sponsor of a “human life amendment,” to draft a platform plank that opposed abortion in much more strident language than the president had originally desired. Helms, who considered abortion to be “murder,” was one of the earliest conservative Republican converts to the pro-life cause; by 1976, he had already written an antiabortion article for Human Events and had been a featured speaker at national pro-life rallies, so he was well versed in the language of the right-to-life movement. He was also a staunch Reagan supporter. By enlisting Helms’s support in drafting the antiabortion platform plank, Dole helped to mollify conservative Republicans, Reagan delegates, and pro-life activists, all of whom had been reluctant to support the president.

**************************************************************************************************************************

To summarize, the decision to call abortion murder was a political decision by the 1976 Republican National Convention not a moral decision. That worked out very well for them so they have continued that policy until today. I've always asked myself if the Republican Party was so much against abortion why haven't they made a serious effort to reverse Roe vs. Wade in almost 50 years. The answer is they don't want to do that. It's been a GREAT POLITICAL advantage for them not to do that. That way they could always count on the "Evangelical Christian" vote even when running someone like Trump who looks much more like the Anti-Christ than a Christian.

 

I agree with your first point. However, I don't see what difference that makes. R vs. W was an interpretation of the Constitution as amended and that certainly stands as law doesn't it. Or do you not believe in the Constitution?

 

The Constitution although it is the law of the law is not inerrant or free from error. Only the Word of God (which the United States Constitution is not) is infallible. Those who drafted the American Constitution did not do so under superintendence and supernatural guidance of the Holy Spirit of God. If therefore, those writings which alone were written by men under the inspiration and supernatural guidance of the Holy Spirit disagrees with the Constitution in any point concerning what is or is not just, what is or is not murder, then it is what those books which were delivered by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit teach that we ought to receive, believe, and submit our understandings to. Therefore, even if it could be proven that the Constitution did not extend the right of life to the unborn (and I believe the right to life as guaranteed in the Constitution does apply to the unborn) if it were found at the same time that the Holy Scriptures teach that abortion is murder and by consequence that it ought to be outlawed, then it necessarily follows that in this case one ought not to believe what is set forth in the Constitution. For whenever man’s word or mere human writings which are subject to error contradict the Holy Scriptures which as the Word of God are inerrant and not subject to error, then we must go with the divine and infallible rule of God in His Word.

For as Protestants we believe that the Word of God contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are supreme over all human judgments, supreme over all counsels and constitutions of men, having sufficient and supreme authority of itself as the sufficient and only rule of our faith and practice.